Castlevania Dungeon Forums
Off Topic => Off Topic => Topic started by: Mooning Freddy on December 17, 2015, 09:46:08 AM
-
... And it was a decent film. A bit too similar to "The Hurt Locker". There were so many similarities between them, it's hard not to see the movie as a bit of a ripoff. So instead of a sapper addicted to danger, you have a sniper increasingly haunted by the war in Iraq. It's essentially the same film.
Now, for the criticism. I heard that the film was bashed by many for being uber-patriotic and not showing how controversial the war in Iraq really was. Now, I want to say what I think about the film.
1. The film has many morally-problematic scenes. Innocents being killed, women and children turned into terrorists.
This is no right-wing propaganda. This is the reality of the Middle East. People in the Middle East don't see the world as Westerners do. They don't really see gray zones. It's all black vs. white, we vs they. It doesn't have to be their state against the West; It could just as well be Sunnis vs Shiites vs Christians, one tribe against the other. Too often they see politics as a zero-sum-game: if we don't win, all is lost. This is why civil wars in the middle east are so gruesome, and the laws of war are not observed. The women and children of the enemy are seen as legitimate targets, and your own women and children- as potential recruits for the total war against "the enemy".
Have no doubt, the terrorists that America fought against (and is still fighting) in Iraq and Afghanistan are the scum of earth, and the war against them was a just war.
2. This being said, there is a problem in the way the film presents the war. It makes the viewer think that the war on terrorism could be won by simply killing terrorists. That's tactical thinking, not strategical. The war on terrorism could not be truly won until people no longer see terrorism as a legitimate tool for achieving political goals; and that some political goals, such as establishing a sharia state, are illegitimate by themselves because they violate human rights.
To win against terrorism, you need to end support for terrorism; to do that, you need to change the way people SEE THE WORLD. And that's much harder than killing terrorists. Bombing people may actually strengthen terrorism, not weaken it.
-
It's a careful game where one must find the balance between making an example of wrongdoers and winning the hearts and minds of the common people.
Fortunately, the Islamic State is beginning to disgust non-radicalised Muslims so much that religious reform groups are beginning to appear in the first significant capacity they've seen since the height of the Ottoman Empire. I'm glad to see so many standing up and saying "No more. You don't commit these atrocities in my name."
Hopefully that will soon turn into active resistance.
The name "Islam" means "Submission to God". But "Submission to God" is different from "Submission to Sexist Racist Psychpaths and the Religious Text They Use To Justify It".
Christianity has largely overcome its violent past, with only a few outliers who are actually aggressive and violent, and those are condemned by the overwhelming majority. Given some time and a lot of effort, Islam will steadily become that way too -- and be able to prove it to others too! As Ghandi (is attributed as having) said: "You must be the change you wish to see in the world."